Scientific Research and Essay Vol.4 (10), pp.

972-983, October, 2009

Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/sre
ISSN 1992-2248 2009 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Soil and foundation stability improvement by stone

column: A case study in Adapazari city, Turkey
Hasan Arman1*, Seyhan Frat2, Isa Vural2 and Zeki Gunduz3
1

Geology Department, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, UAE,

2
Construction Department, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
3
Civil Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey.
Accepted 6 August, 2009

Adapazari city is located on a very deep alluvial deposit and in a seismically active region. Due to the
catastrophic earthquakes, the region had painful experiences in the past. The latest severe earthquake,
called Marmara earthquake, hit the region on August 17, 1999. It resulted in nearly 4.000 deaths, over
5,000 injuries and totally destroyed more than 29,000 buildings. The region has liquefaction potential
due to its geological set up. Most of the structures built on the liquefiable soil severely settled or tilted
besides the structural damages. To re-accommodate these structures, it is necessary to strengthen
them besides improve their ground conditions. Then, it may be possible to avoid probable damages
caused by liquefaction and use them again safely. In this study, application of modified dry bottom feed
stone column as one of the dominant ground improvement methods in the region was introduced. Also,
a numerical analysis is carried out to check its performance with respect to displacements. According
to numerical results, significant improvements were obtained in terms of displacements.
Key words: Marmara earthquake, alluvial deposit, ground improvement, stone column, numerical model.
INTRODUCTION
There are a number of methods available to improve
ground conditions such as stone columns, jet grouting,
compaction grouting, short pile, dynamic compaction,
lime stabilization etc. Before using any of these methods,
it is required to know the local ground conditions in detail.
Even though processes are costly and time consuming
they must be done in order to choose a most suitable and
applicable ground improvement method to mitigate the
undesirable consequences caused by earthquakes.
In Adapazari region, due to local site conditions, most
widely accepted ground improvement techniques have
limitations. Selecting a suitable and effective ground
improvement method is very important. Stone column,
cement-grouting with chemicals and reinforced short pile
are the three alternative solutions, which are used
extensively in the region. Besides local ground conditions,
economical considerations and level of earthquakes da-

*Corresponding author. E-mail: hasan.arman@gmail.com,

Harman@uaeu.ac.ae. Tel: +971-3-7134210. Fax: +971-37671291.

mages or existing status should be evaluated carefully.

Stone column is an acceptable technique for improving
soil conditions. This method has been used since late
1950s. Through the application of this method, it may be
possible to limit settlement and increase the strength of
foundation. During an earthquake, stone columns can
also act as a gravel drain column to release pore water
pressure and the liquefaction potential of a ground can be
reduced (Gnieal and Bouazza, 2008; Shenthan et al.,
2004; Mitra and Chathpadhyay, 1999; Madhav and
Miura, 1994; Goughnour et al., 1991; Mitchel et al., 1985;
Datye, 1982).
The possible benefits of stone columns include
densification of surrounding non-cohesive soil, dissipation
of excess pore water pressure and re-distribution of
earthquake-induced or pre-existing stress (due to introduction of the stiffer columns). When dealing with nonplastic silty soils, only the third benefit can be expected
primarily to mitigate liquefaction (Adalier et al., 2003).
One of the techniques extensively used in soft soils is
vibro replacement, which consists of replacing some of
the soft soil with crushed rock or gravel to form an array
of stone columns beneath the foundation. The use of

Arman et al.

973

Figure 1. Location of study area and major tectonic elements of Turkey (Barka and Kadinsky-Code, 1988).

conventional stone columns in soft soil deposits was

found to benefit foundations in many respects (Gniel and
Bouazza, 2008).
Alternatively, soil condition can also be improved by
injecting a fluidized material such as cement paste
suspension or a chemical solution known as grout. Permeability of soil decreases and soil becomes stiffer and
stronger. To penetrate the grout into voids among soil
particles, certain amount of pressure is required. By
increasing the viscosity of grout, porous size can be
decreased (Powrie, 1997).
Reinforced short pile is also considered as one of
alternative methods to improve the stability of the structure and avoid the liquefaction damages to the structures.
The length and diameter of the reinforced short pile are
important in application (Cernica, 1995).
The main objective of this paper is to introduce the
modified dry bottom feed stone column installation
method under existing buildings, which were mostly
damaged by various levels. In this study, a numerical
analysis is also carried out to observe its applicability,
merits, advantages and disadvantages.
GEOLOGY AND LOCAL GROUND CONDITIONS OF
ADAPAZARI REGION
The study area is located on the North Anatolian Fault
(NAF), which is the largest and most active one in Turkey
( engr, 1980; Barka and Glen, 1987; Barka and
Kadisky-Code, 1988) (Figure 1). Adapazari city, in parti-

cular, is founded on very deep alluvial deposits consisting

mostly gravel, sand, silt, silty and clayey sands, clay and
aged Quaternary. The Sakarya River, which is one of the
biggest rivers in Turkey, flows through Adapazari valley.
It is considered that deep alluvial deposits are formed by
the river.
Due to the great influence of the regime of Sakarya
River in the region, ground layer exhibits lens kind deposit. Generally, silt and clay series exist on the ground and
gravel-sand-silt series continuously follow the surface
series. The ground dominantly consists of gravely and
silty sand with different densities and contains low plasticity silty and clay bandage at some places (Tezcan,
1975). Groundwater table in Adapazari region exhibits
differences and comes close to ground surface during
spring seasons.
The test site consists of thick alluvial deposits that are
transported by the river. Area covered by water was filled
by floods of the Sakarya River that occurs nearly every 2
years. At present, almost all the area is developed to be a
flat area and marsh is seldom seen. As indicated in this
geological history, surface soil of the area is a very young
Holocene soil developed in the recent 200 years. The
water table is generally high to be about 1 - 3 m and it
may come closer the ground surface in rainy season
(elebi et al., 2009).
Especially after the earthquake, a number of borehole
logs drilled by various governmental agencies, local
public body and private consultants are available. The
depth of these boreholes ranges from 10 to 200 meters A
typical borehole data obtained from the region are given

974

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 2. Typical ground cross-section of Adapazari region.

in Figure 2. In addition, some deep boreholes drilled at

Adapazari Valley failed to reach bedrock. Because of its
geology and local ground conditions, the valley receives
a great attention for its liquefaction potential during
earthquakes (Bray et al., 2004; Arman et al., 1997).
SEISMICITY AND IMPORTANT EARTHQUAKES
OCCURRED IN ADAPAZARI REGION
Turkey is on the Alpine active earthquake chain. 1939
Erzincan, 1966 Varto, 1967 Adapazari-Mudurnu, 1970
Gediz, 1971 Burdur and Bingl, 1992 Erzincan, 1995
Dinar and 1999 Marmara earthquakes are examples of
Alpine chain activity. The NAF, a well-known strike-slip
fault, lies from east to west. Adapazari City is located on
the north side of the NAF and had experienced severe
earthquakes in the past. According to historical records,
earthquakes affected the region and caused extensive
damages and casualties. Hendek earthquake in 1943 (Ms
= 6.4), Abant earthquake in 1957 (Ms = 7.0), Mudurnu
Valley earthquake (Ms = 7.1) and Marmara earthquake
(Ms = 7.8) are the biggest and destructive ones in the
region.
Mudurnu earthquake occurred on July 22, 1967 in the
western part of the NAF zone. The sense of movement
along the fault break was high lateral with the north side
downthrown. The maximum relative lateral and vertical
displacements were 190 and 120 cm. The earthquake
killed 86 and wounded 332 people, destroyed over 5000
houses (Ambraseys, 1988).
The Marmara earthquake of August 17, 1999 was the

most recent destructive event in the region. It was associated with faulting over a length of approximately 100120 km. The maximum lateral displacement along this
fault line in Adapazari region was approximately 425 cm
and the maximum vertical displacement was approximately 30 cm. Most of the reinforced concrete structures,
built on the liquefiable soil in the region, were severely
settled or tilted besides the structural damages (Figure 3)
(Bakir et al., 2002, 2005; Wasti and Ozcebe, 2003;
Mollamahmutoglu et al., 2002).
Only in the region, 29,824 buildings were heavily
damaged or totally collapsed, 22,170 buildings were
medium damaged and 29,938 buildings were slightly
damaged. Official records indicated that 3,891 deaths
and 5,150 injuries were recorded in Adapazari city itself
(Governor of Sakarya, 2000). The Marmara earthquake
was felt in a very large area. However, Adapazari region
was the worst affected area due to its bad soil conditions
compared to the neighbouring regions geology and local
ground conditions, the valley receives a great attention
for its liquefaction potential during earthquakes (Bray et
al., 2004; Arman et al., 1997).
GROUND IMPROVEMENT METHODS APPLIED IN
ADAPAZARI REGION
During the Marmara earthquake, reinforced concrete
structures, that were mostly 2 to 5 stories located on the
surface of liquefiable soil, were severely settled or tilted
due to the loss of bearing capacity of the soil. To retrofit
these structures, it requires improving the existing soil

Arman et al.

Figure 3. Totally damaged structure built on liquefiable soil.

condition with proper ground improvement methods and

then repair by available engineering codes.
Two alternative solutions can be considered to avoid
the effects of liquefaction-induced damages to the
structures placed on a liquefiable soil;
1) To build a reliable structure that will not be affected by
liquefaction phenomenon.
2) To improve ground condition that will avoid or minimize
the liquefaction potential of a ground.
If it is possible, foundation of structure can be located under the liquefiable layer and pore water pressure, which
increases dramatically during the earthquake, can be
reduced or the characteristics of the ground can be
changed. In addition to safety and reliability considerations, cost plays an important role as well in choosing a
ground improvement method. Also, geometry of the
structure is an important criterion.
In the region, three different ground improvement
methods, grouting, reinforced short pile and stone column, were applied. Before a decision was made to pick a
method, it was necessary to know ground conditions in
detail. Based on the soil data, one of these methods was
selected for an application. During the application,
operating companies faced a number of difficulties. An
important question was how safely and reliably ground
condition of existing damaged structures could be
improved. If there is no structure on a site, as usual it is
straight forward to select a suitable method based on a
detailed soil investigation. In Adapazari City, a ground
improvement method must be done under an existing either slightly or moderately damaged - structures. It was
difficult to apply a suitable and reliable ground
improvement method under this condition.
The grouting method is used to improve ground
condition. For an application, it requires to drill boreholes
with certain diameter, length and distance from each
other under a damaged structure. Then, cement-based
grout was injected to a ground under a certain pressure.

975

However, in most cases, it was difficult to place an

ordinary boring machine under a damaged structure due
to lack of enough space. Before grouting start, such
difficulty should be eliminated. A special custom designed
borehole machine was used to drill boreholes for
grouting. Injection boreholes were approximately 76 mm
in diameter and their length was ranged from 7 to 10 m.
However, in most cases, soil conditions in the region
are not suitable for this method.
Reinforced short pile was also used to improve ground
condition in the region. On site, similar difficulties were
also faced. All reinforced short piles were fixed to a structure foundation. The diameter of the reinforced short pile
was approximately 30 to 40 cm and their length is 7 to 15
m. Due to the soil condition of the region, there was no
way to attach reinforced short piles to a reliable strata.
Komazawa et al. (2001) reported that the thickness of
the alluvial deposit in the region was more than 1,000 m.
Application of modified dry bottom feed stone column,
with approximately 40 to 60 cm in diameter and 5 to 10 m
in length, was mostly done in the region. Besides
borehole casing difficulties, similar problems were also
encountered in the modified dry bottom feed stone
column application. To drill approximately 20 cm diameter
and 5 to 10 m length borehole requires a special boring
machine. Boreholes with nearly 1.5 to 2.5 m distances
from each other were drilled under damaged buildings.
Then, boreholes were filled with crushed stone with certain size. Generally, in a liquefiable soil, when pore water
pressure increases, a built up pressure will be reduced
through stone columns. Then, structural damages caused
by liquefaction will be minimized.
Application of modified dry bottom feed stone
column
An application of stone column in the study area was
different from an ordinary dry bottom feed stone column
installation method which was detailed in literatures
(Menard Soil Treatment, 2009; Terra Systems, 2009; The
Vibroflotation Group, 2009). This application may be
called a modified dry bottom feed stone column. For an
application, the following procedure is generally followed;
1) Prepare geotechnical report for the existing buildings.
2) Make a decision on the applicability of this method
based on the geotechnical report.
3) Obtain the foundation drawing of the existing building.
4) Calculate the length, location and the required number
of stone columns.
5) Produce the stone columns.
To apply stone columns, it requires drilling a borehole
through the foundation of an existing damaged building.
Boreholes must reach to the bottom of foundation. Then,
continuous boring was performed using 60 cm long
augers connected to each other until planned length of

976

Sci. Res. Essays

20 cm
(a)

(b)

Steel grid

40-60 cm
(c)

(d)

Figure 4. Sequence of stone column application (not in scale).

boreholes for stone column was drilled (Figure 4a). A diameter of boreholes is approximately 20 cm (Figure 4a).
Due to limitation of the working space, special design of
pile insulation machine with strong torque and reverse
auger, which was approximately 20 cm diameter and 60

cm length each, was used. The machine was also

capable of applying a hydraulic pressure during an
application. Strong torch and hydraulic pressure are
transmitted through the crushed stones. This will provide
compaction of crushed stones to the bottom and side o

Arman et al.

boreholes. Recoil of the machine during the reverse

auguring is balanced by a compressive force exerted by
the machine. This feature is utilized to apply an extra
force during the compaction of crushed stones.
During the preparation of boreholes for stone columns,
it was observed that removing of soil from the borehole
through auguring was very limited. Boreholes for stone
columns were completed both pushing and compacting of
soil. Thereby, a maximum compaction can be applied to
soil. When the tip of the auger reached to the bottom of a
planned stone column, the modified dry bottom feed
stone column installation started by reverse turning the
auger and continuously pouring crushed stones from
ground surface into borehole. Crushed stones go through
augers edges to the bottom and sides of borehole
(Figure 4b). A strong reverse torch and hydraulic pressure were continuously applied. When the machine was
over loaded, reverse auguring was barely done. In this
case, the auguring systems were pulled up approximately
10 - 20 cm and the auguring continued as before (Figure
4c). An insulation process was finished when the top of
the stone column was reached. Then, a steel grid was
placed on the top of the stone column (Figure 4d). In the
modified method, casing of boreholes could not be done
due to the operation difficulties in applications. However,
the casing has been generally used for the applications,
which have no constraints (Datye, 1982).
It is important to keep in mind that the amount of the
crushed stone poured in the borehole must be recorded
during each operation. A diameter of the stone columns
mostly reaches up to 40 - 60 cm, but, it is mainly
controlled by geotechnical characteristics of local ground
conditions.
Case study: A five-story reinforced concrete building,
which was structurally damaged, was selected for a case
study (Figure 5).
It was necessary to improve ground conditions and
reinforce structural parts of the building. Based on its
geotechnical data, it was decided to use the modified dry
bottom feed stone column as a ground improvement
method. Figure 6 shows the plan view of the stone
columns placed on the foundation and its cross-section.
The length of the stone column was decided to be 7.0 m.
The amount of crushed stone used for each stone
column and the diameter of the stone columns are given
in Table 1. The application of the modified method on the
site is displayed in Figure 7.
NUMERICAL MODELING AND ANALYSIS
For the presented case study, stone columns in a layered
soil were mathematically modeled in order to perform a
numerical analysis (Figure 8). Plane stress condition is
used in numerical modeling. To assess the effects of
stone columns on the constitute model; behavior of the
system in computer environment was investigated with

977

f
o
r
c
e
d
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

Figure 5. Structurally damaged five-story reinforced

concrete building located on liquefiable soil.

Finite Element Method (FEM). FEM was used as a numerical solution method to distinct infinite soil region. The
computer code SAP2000, which was suitable for FEM,
was utilized in computer modeling.
FEM is a numerical technique utilized to solve
problems which were expressed with partial differential
equations. Values which are unknown and want to be
calculated by FEM are at nodes. When an equation set is
acquired for values at size field's nodes using the principle of minimum energy, the equation set in matrix form
is typically as follows:

[K]{U} + [C]{U}+ [M ]{U} = {F}

(1)

Where; {U}, which represents unknown values of size

field's at nodes, is the element vector, {F} is the known
element force vector, M is the element mass matrix

[ ]

[ ]

and K is the known constants matrix. Also,

as stiffness matrix in stress analysis.
In

mathematical

modeling,

K is known

horizontal, L x

and

vertical, Ly length of distinct soil region were 160 and 50

m, respectively. The modeling was built based on zero
displacements along the bottom since the assumption of
the distinct system boundary condition at the bottom was
bedrock. Horizontal boundaries were also modeled with
equivalent static springs and damping.
Calculation of liquefaction potential was indicated that
soil under the structure was liquefiable (Table 2). Soil
properties used in mathematical modeling is also given in
Table 3.
Horizontal and vertical displacements indicate that an
average 35% ground improvement is provided through
stone column application (Table 4).

Sci. Res. Essays

978

5
17

200

0
20
210

700

A steel grid is
placed on top of
the stone column

40-60 cm.
Crushed
Stone

Figure 6. Plan view and cross-section (A-A) of stone column.

180

SC-21
250

255

260

265

SC-20

255

SC-32
SC-39

275

SC-38

Mat Foundation
Ground floor slab
Base Concrete
Gravel

240

220

SC-26

270

TK-14
250

240

SC-27

SC-28

SC-33

SC-34

200

260

SC-7

SC-13

210

SC-19

245

SC-25
SC-31

200

205

205
180

255

SC-37

SC-18

190

SC-6

210

260

SC-12

250

250

SC-30

230

SC-24

220

210

SC-29

240

225

SC-11
210

215

SC-23

195

0
20

230

0
SC-35 SC-36 21
180

SC-17

0
19

250
5
16

SC-22

210

SC-16
250

230

215

SC-10

220

225

SC-15

SC-5

250

220

SC-9

225

SC-4

315

180

200

215

205

SC-8

210

SC-3

17
5

160

SC-2

20
0

200

SC-1

255

Arman et al.

979

Table 1. Amount of crushed stone and diameter of stone columns.

Stone column No:

SC-1
SC-2
SC-3
SC-4
SC-5
SC-6
SC-7
SC-8
SC-9
SC-10
SC-11
SC-12
SC-13
SC-14
SC-15
SC-16
SC-17
SC-18
SC-19
SC-21
SC-22
SC-23
SC-24
SC-25
SC-26
SC-27
SC-28
SC-29
SC-30
SC-31
SC-32
SC-33
SC-34
SC-35
SC-36
SC-37
SC-38
SC-39
Total = 39

Stone column length

(m)
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
Mean Length = 7.0 m

Volume of crushed stone

3
(m )
1.108
1.296
1.188
1.134
1.350
1.458
1.296
1.134
1.080
1.026
1.242
1.242
1.080
1.350
1.404
1.296
1.134
1.134
1.080
1.188
1.242
1.188
1.296
1.296
1.242
1.080
1.134
1.134
1.080
1.026
1.242
1.188
1.296
1.350
1.404
1.296
1.242
1.242
3
47.466 m

Especially, it was also determined that ground improvement at and around stone columns were much higher.
Away from stone columns, displacements increase.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Most of the ground improvement methods available in
literature are not directly applicable in Adapazari region

Diameter of stone column

(cm)
44
48
46
45
49
51
48
45
44
43
47
47
44
49
50
48
45
45
44
46
47
46
48
48
47
44
45
45
44
43
47
46
48
49
50
48
47
57
Mean Diameter = 47

because of the ground conditions under existing damaged

buildings. Based on soil data, modified dry bottom feed
stone column and reinforced short pile are most applicable in the region. Grouting can only be done in some
specific areas in the region, since the region is mainly
formed by silty and clayey sand deposits.
There were some difficulties during the modified stone
column application. Casing was one of them and could
be done during a preparation of boreholes for stone co-

980

Sci. Res. Essays

Figure 7. Typical application of stone column.

Arman et al.

981

y
cs, ,

V4
4

V3

V1
1

3 U3

U4
V2
U1

2 U2

Figure 8. Mathematical model used in numerical analysis.

Table 2. Calculation of liquefaction potential under the structure.

D (m)

rd

(N1)60

CSRM

CSRL

v0

v0

dev,L

dev

FS

0.98

12

0.14

0.14

94.14

84.33

11.81

24.59

0.48

0.97

18

0.20

0.20

130.42

100.99

20.20

33.71

0.60

0.96

15

0.16

0.16

148.56

109.32

17.49

38.01

0.46

0.94

12

0.14

0.14

184.84

125.98

17.64

46.30

0.38

15

0.77

16

0.18

0.18

315.77

189.24

34.06

64.80

0.53

lumns, concurrently. While pulling up the casing, crushed

stone could fill into prepared boreholes, but operation area
operation area was extremely limited. Therefore, it was
impossible to use casing during the application of modified stone column. To avoid the collapse of the boreholes
continuous boring system with reverse auguring was
used. During the reverse auguring, crushed stone was
filled into the boreholes and compacted. This basically
prevents collapse of boreholes during insulations.

The modified stone column is cost effective compared

to a reinforced short pile application. Its application is
faster than a reinforced short pile. It is a reliable ground
improvement technique in terms of its applicability and
cost.
On the other hand, there is no quick and proper
controlling system for an application of the modified stone
column constructed under existing damaged buildings.
This could be a disadvantage in its application. The visual

982

Sci. Res. Essays

Table 3. Soil properties used in numerical analysis.

Soil
I. Layer
II. Layer
III. Layer
IV. Layer

Density
3
(kN/m )
18.4
18.5
19.3
20.4

Modules of elasticity
2
E (kN/m )
20000
20000
30000
30000

Poisson ratio
(-)
0.35
0.35
0.33
0.33

Layer thickness
(m)
3.0
7.0
16.0
24.0

Table 4. Displacements at different location under foundation.

Node
104
109
119
124
129
134
144
149
154
159
173
179
185
191
494
590
595
806
915
920
1124

Normal case
(Before)
x (mm)
y (mm)
99.50
447.30
86.22
479.42
67.59
524.88
55.11
541.95
43.38
553.01
31.23
558.48
14.31
564.73
2.30
565.72
9.21
561.65
21.38
552.38
39.13
527.80
51.93
511.45
64.46
487.18
77.88
452.93
2.78
473.59
1.38
542.87
37.24
565.08
8.36
574.52
15.32
566.35
45.44
529,16
71.14
480.44

Cross-section of A-A
(After)
x (mm)
94.39
90.41
69.97
64.46
46.75
40.35
15.12
8.55
10.04
16.40
40.36
46.37
62.84
67.46
90.32
70.06
40.28
15.18
16.47
40.27
67.56

y (mm)
297.36
326.03
368.42
403.85
415.56
402.35
410.55
431.48
428.49
401.92
381.16
388.59
369.36
325.24
314.78
377.34
400.71
412.72
406.75
376.67
338.22

inspection and recording of the filled crushed stone can

be considered the only way to control the quality of the
insulation of stone columns. However, numerical analysis
may provide some information to check the suitability and
reliability of stone columns. The modeling used in the
study proves that modified stone columns provide considerable increase, about 50%, in ground improvement for
soils having liquefiable potential. Although the application
of the modified stone column has some difficulties, it is
expected that liquefaction may be prevented since stone
column works as a vertical drain and reduces the pore
water pressure during an earthquake.
REFERENCES
Adalier K, Elgamal A, Meneses J, Baez IJ (2003). Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. J. Soil Dyn.

Node
104
109
119
124
129
134
144
149
154
159
173
179
185
191
494
590
595
806
915
920
1124

Normal case
(Before)
x (mm)
y (mm)
99.50
447.30
86.22
479.42
67.59
524.88
55.11
541.95
43.38
553.01
31.23
558.48
14.31
564.73
2.30
565.72
9.21
561.65
21.38
552.38
39.13
527.80
51.93
511.45
64.46
487.18
77.88
452.93
92.78
473.59
61.38
542.87
37.24
565.08
8.36
574.52
15.32
566.35
45.44
529.16
71.14
480.44

Cross-section of B-B
(After)
x (mm)
77.21
75.76
64.26
59.17
41.94
35.59
10.59
3.99
14.38
20.39
42.77
47.32
52.51
54.61
6.68
64.34
35.51
10.65
20.46
42.70
53.79

y (mm)
199.79
220.51
273.58
313.21
327.52
315.01
322.96
342.53
336.88
306.90
273.84
248.90
224.58
203.37
209.80
284.49
313.12
324.52
313.27
264.64
213.64

Earthquake Eng. 23(7): 571-584.

Ambraseys NN (1988). Engineering seismology. Earthquake Eng.
Structural Dyn. 17: 1-10.
Arman H, Ozcan Z, Onalp A, Aydan O (1997). Three dimensional
assessment of liquefaction susceptibility of Adapazari region, Turkey.
8th International conference on soil dynamics and earthquake
engineering, SDEE97, extended abstract, held at Istanbul, Turkey,
pp. 136-137.
Bakir BS, Sucuoglu H, Yilmaz T (2002). An overview of local site effects
and the associated building damage in Adapazari during the 17 August 1999 Izmit Earthquake. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 92(1): 509-526.
Bakir BS, Yilmaz MT, Yakut A, Gulkan P (2005). Re-examination of
damage distribution in Adapazari: geotechnical considerations. Eng.
Structures 27: 102-1013.
Barka AA, Gulen L (1987). Age and total displacement of the North
Anatolia Fault Zone and its significance for the better understanding
of the tectonic history and present day dynamics of the eastern
Mediterranean region. Melih Tokay Geol. Smyp. METU, Geology
Dept., Ankara, Turkey pp. 57-58.
Barka AA, Kadinsky-Code K (1988). Strike-slip fault geometry in Turkey
and its influence on earthquake activity 1. Tectonics 7: 663-684.

Arman et al.

Bray JD, Sancio RB, Durgunoglu HT, Onalp A, Youd TL, Stewart JP,
Seed RB, Cetin KO, Bol E, Baturay MB, Christensen C, Karadayilar T
(2004). Subsurface characterization at ground failure sites in
Adapazari, Turkey. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE. 130 (7):
673-685.
Celebi E, Firat S, Beyhan G, Cankaya I, Vural I, Kirtel O (2009). Field
experiments on wave propagation and vibration isolation by using
wave barriers. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29: 824-833.
Cernica JN (1995). Geotechnical engineering: Foundation Design. John
Wiley & Sons, New York pp 215-216.
Datye KR (1982). Settlement of bearing capacity of foundation system
with stone columns. Symposium on recent developments in ground
improvements techniques held at Bangkok pp. 85-104.
Gniel J, Bouazza A (2008). Improvement of soft soils using geogrid
encased stone columns. Geotextiles Geomembranes. 27: 167-175
Goughnour RR, Sung TJ, Ramsey JS (1991). Slide correction by stone
columns. In: M.I. Esrig, R.C. Bachus, (Eds) Deep Foundation
Improvements Design, Construction and Testing, ASTM, STP 1089
pp. 131-147.
Governor of Sakarya (2000). Sakarya and Earthquake. In: T. Ero lu
(Ed.), Earthquake Series of Sakarya Governor, September pp. 64-67.
Komazawa M, Morikawa H, Nakamura K, Akamatsu J, Nishimura K,
Sawada S, Erken A, Arman H, Onalp A (2001). Bedrock structure in
Adapazari, Turkey-A possible cause of severe damage by the 1999
Kocaeli Earthquake. 10th International conference on soil dynamics
and earthquake engineering, SDEE2001, extended abstract, held at
Philadelphia, USA pp. 97-98.
Madhav MR, Miura N (1994). Soil improvement. Panel report on stone
columns. Proceedings 13th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, held at New Delhi, India 5: 163-164.
Menard Soil Treatment (2009). Stone columns. [Online]: Available at
http://www.menardusa.com/ columns.html.

983

Mitchel JK, Huber TR (1985). Performance of a stone column foundation. J. Geotech. Eng. ASCE. 111(2): 205-223.
Mitra S, Chathpadhyay BC (1999). Stone columns and design limitations. Proc. of Indian geotechnical conference, held at Culcutta, India
pp. 201-205.
Mollamahmutoglu M, Kayabali K, Beyaz T, Kolay E (2002). Liquefaction-related building damage in Adapazari during the Turkey
Earthquake of August 17, (1999). Eng. Geology. 67(3-4): 297-307.
Powrie W (1997). Soil Mechanics, Concept of application. E & FN
Spon, London pp. 645-657.
Sengor AMC (1980). The North Anatolia transform fault: Its age, offset
and tectonic significance. J. Geol. Soc. London. 136: 269-282.
Shenthan T, Nashed R, Thevanagayam S, Martin GR (2004). Liquefaction mitigation in silty soils using composite stone columns and
dynamic compaction. Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibration. 3(1): 39-50.
Terra Systems (2009). Stone columns. [Online]: Available at
http://www.terrasystems-inc.com.
Tezcan S (1975). Anadolu otoyolu deprem incelemesi. AREA, Paris, p.
157.
The Vibroflotation Group (2009). Stone columns. [Online]: Available at
http://www.vibroflotation.com.
Wasti ST, Ozcebe G (2003). Seismic assessment and rehabilitation of
existing buildings. Nato Science Series. IV. Earth Environ. Sci. 24:
546.